Replies to This Discussion

Nope, and until there's EVIDENCE that they do, I'll stand behind my words. On topics of scientific knowledge, evidence speaks louder than opinion. Now if it were a socio-political issue, then hell yes, opinions are good arguments.

Surely you're jesting? Have you no understanding of the workings of scientific evidence? In order for animals to have a purpose, there would need to be evidence of this. It can't be stated any simpler.

And in order for humans to have a purpose, there would need to be scientific evidence. You can't have it both ways.

If you reject the idea that animals have a purpose on account of the lack of scientific evidence, then you must reject the idea that humans have a purpose on account of the lack of scientific evidence, and you must reject that God exists on account of the lack of scientific evidence. But you should also know that the lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary.

So do you still stand behind your words that animals don't have "purpose"?

Have the words 'positive' and 'negative' been defined for all people, everywhere, and for all time?

I don't think so.

World War One failed to influence people to create a League of Nations. World War Two succeeded and we now have the United Nations. Adolf Hitler and his allies found so much crap to fling that they persuaded us to get past our differences.

Your "orderly" chair is a fascinating topic. In physics we learn that order never exists on it's own, it's always a balancing act between entropy and enthalpy. Therefore, the chair in fact gives you the illusion of orderliness.

Metaphysically speaking, order and disorder are soul mates and inseparable. :)

Since you are defining the rules for the purpose of those objects, then they are hardly "outside of ourselves". The mind is required to make the connection between "chair" and "sit", or "litter" and "pollution".